On Catholics

A Response to Club Schadenfreude’s “You Can See How Crazy Christians Can Be.”

I found an article called “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – you too can see how crazy Christians can be.” In itself, this does not really seem to be the most polite title. I decided to respond to it because… well, I do not really know why, but I see no reason why not—and then, abortion is an important issue. It is written by someone called Club Schadenfreude. I banned her from commenting on my blog a while ago because she was harassing other commenters and thus, in my mind, preventing honest dialogue. However, that is something I really do not like to do, so I thought I might as well make it up to her in a much more temperate climate of responding to a blog post. Without further ado, let us jump into it.

To begin with, she is apparently responding to a fellow Catholic who writes under the name Kristor. See his article here. The article is so short I might as well quote the whole thing here:

The recent decisions of the Supreme Court cheat Moloch of his accustomed cheap comestibles. He’ll have to make do with less. But, as with all natural systems under the orbit of the moon, this is a case of pushing the envelope in one way only to see it bulge out in another. Moloch will be served, adequately, or there’ll be hell to pay, and no pitch hot.

There will be deaths. Not of children in the womb, but of others. Moloch must be fed, by his slaves. Now that he’ll be denied the food of babies from so many “trigger” states, he’ll need to be fed in some other way. His vassals will try to figure out how  to immolate some high profile victims, to sate his hunger and avert his wrath. I suspect they’ll offer up some from among their own company.

It can’t work. It can’t suffice. His wrath shall inevitably consume all his worshippers. There are not victims enough to sate his lust. His servants then are doomed.

Reject him! Serve the Lord of Life! Only thereby might you prevent your own ingestion, and dissolution, in the insatiable maw of Moloch.

I might as well give my own thoughts before responding to Schadenfreude’s. I admit this is somewhat dramatic and sensational—clearly not meant to be read by the Pro-Choice but rather to inspire Pro-Lifers. Still, I will not say he is wrong, provided we take “Moloch” in a somewhat metaphorical sense. Now let us get to Schadenfreude’s response.

No Moloch, dears, and no Christian god. I do love the lies of Christians, who have no problem with their god killing children at all. The hypocrisy is wonderful. And it’s always good to see an impotent imaginary god that can’t get rid of another imaginary god.

Lest there is any doubt, this is definably not how anyone should approach apologetics, whether Christian or atheist. Intellectual virtue consists of a character that promotes intellectual flourishing, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. Random and on-the-spot accusations of lying, coupled with random, impromptu, and impolite pieces of sarcasm is basically the opposite of that.

Literally, the only people left who are happy with human sacrifice are Christians. We see this in their myths (a babe born in a manger and Jephtha’s daughter for starters), in unfortunately common actions where Christians think their god will heal a child and let the child die, and now in their need to sacrifice women. 

I wonder if she is using the term literally metaphorically. I honestly cannot tell, but if she is not, I greatly doubt that. At any rate, I do not see how she can excludes Muslim and Jews by her criteria—not to mention anyone who actually worships such demons.

But I might as well respond to this actual argument. Remember, God gave life in the first place, but He never intended it to be permanent on Earth. It is our calling to be with Him in heaven. It is easily in God’s rights to take His children when He wills, while it is not within the rights of men who do not have authority over life and death. When you look at it that way, this reasoning could be said to be quite logical, even if it is hard for us to see in this life. Besides, if we are just talking about children here, chances are many of them will go to heaven when otherwise, for all we know, perhaps they would not.

Something I’ve found out recently is that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow baptism for the still-born, nor can a mass be said (more information down in the comments). Why? Because they haven’t taken their first breath and therefore aren’t alive. Now, funny how this isn’t what they claim about abortion at all. Now, Christians other than Catholics might be insisting that they don’t believe in this, but funny how they all read from the same bible, and it also says life begins with the first breath too. As always, the bible and its god is no more than a Rorschach test, showing what the human wants to pretend is true, nothing more. 

This is a clear example of taking a doctrine out of context so as to imply that the Catholic Church is in some way hypocritical, which as it is framed, could be said to be intellectually dishonest if done deliberately. The Catholic Church does not allow for baptism of a stillborn—or baptism for any other corpse. The Church also would not baptize the corpse of a catechumen who dies in a car accident or a baby who was born alive and then got his head chopped off by an evil serial killer of a doctor (sorry to give the reader nightmares, but that was the only example that came to mind). The Church only has power over the living. As for the dead, we entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that they are saved. 

As for banning masses to be said for them, that is not entirely accurate. I will say I imagine it is not done as much because few theologians think they are in Purgatory and they are probably either in Heaven or Limbo. In the comment she links, she claims, “My point about baptism is that if a fertilized egg, zygote, fetus is considered “alive”, then the RCC should be baptizing them as soon as the woman has a positive pregnancy test.” I was under the impression that “RCC” was simply Protestant slang, but that is beside the point. The point is that it seems quite difficult to me to baptize an embryo unless you expect a priest to have the doctor temporarily remove the baby from the uterus for a baptism, which seems very unsafe.

But as for embryos and fetuses being “alive”, science alone tells us that and indeed that a fetus is an independant organism. As for us reading the same Bible, this feels like grasping at straws—either that or not really understanding the root differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It is true that it is troubling that all Protestants follow the exact same method of learning about God but then cannot agree on anything. I discuss this inn greater depth here. Catholics, however, have a teaching authority to keep them on the same track and follow both Scripture and Tradition, which leads to doctrinal unity.

To this, I foresee the objection that not all non-Protestant Christians are Catholic. The Orthodox Church is still huge and then there are also High Anglicans, who are not quite Protestant, Old Catholics, Sedevacantists, and Beneplenists to name a few. I will simply knock off Sedevacantists and Beneplenists from the list since I think the whole thing results from a misunderstanding of Canon Law (no offense to anyone reading this who espouses such views—I deal with them elsewhere). The Orthodox and Anglicans do not have quite the same tradition, although it is very similar. Hence, it can be noted that there is a lot less doctrinal variation among us than there is among Protestants. I would argue that Catholicism best reflects the Early Church, but whatever is the case, simply stating that “You all disagree with each other and therefore you must all be wrong” is simply unsound logic.

I should probably respond to the last sentence, “As always, the bible and its god is no more than a Rorschach test, showing what the human wants to pretend is true, nothing more.” This is the fallacy of bulverism. Bulverism is a term humorously coined by C. S. Lewis after an imaginary character. It is a rhetorical fallacy that assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake or to be so silly (even if the opponent’s claim is actually right) by attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive. Now, the objector might claim that Schadenfreude (I can never remember how to spell that) explained why this is wrong before making this psychoanalysis. However, even if Christianity contained an alleged contradiction, it would not follow that we are all liars, unless she expects us to be infallible gods—and, as we know, Schadenfreude does not believe in gods—we could just be much more charitable than to go around accusing people of being liars.

So what does this teach us? First of all, be mindful of intellectual vices which do not promote charity in dialogue and apologetics. Second, when you find a two-thousand-year-old system of faith and think you can refute it by an alleged simple contradiction in a few paragraphs, keep in mind that you might have to do more research before you think you have refuted this organization. Generally, when millions of people hold to a viewpoint, especially one as historically intellectual as Catholicism, I think it is unrealistic to suppose one can refute the idea so easily—which is why I think it is, in fact, irrational, to go around accusing us of intentional deceit.

Bonum Certamen Certemus
I am the Catholic of Honor

By The Chivalric Catholic

Hello, I am the Chivalric Catholic or the Catholic of Honor. I conform all my beliefs to the Magisterium founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. The short explanation of who I am is a teenager with nostalgia for the Middle Ages. I have a love for apologetics, honor, and literature (especially adventures). I believe it is important and honorable to respect my opponents in this. If anything I write is contrary to the Faith (after all, I have no degrees) please write to me and inform me.

10 replies on “A Response to Club Schadenfreude’s “You Can See How Crazy Christians Can Be.””

The Orthosphere is a great site and Kristor is s great writer, I hope you find more fruitful work there! Club Schadenfreude is a familiar gadfly there and not especially serious. Good takedown of an article well deserving of it!

Liked by 1 person

Its easy to think and believe the best for people. Even people who are initially so opposed. But they eventually show you who they are and reveal their intentions. Proffering someone trust at the outset is wise and graceful. Until they clearly show by their actions and words that they value neither Grace, nor civility. Such a one is Club.

Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s